<p>I currently have a B.Com degree in South Africa.
I'm considering studying the 3yr M.Arch degree which takes in students from all different areas of study, so as not to waste my undergrad.
I realise the B.Arch is generally 2 years longer, but I was just wondering, what is the difference in studying/having the B.Arch or M.Arch?
Is there a sallary difference? A massive knowledge difference?
For someone who has never studied architecture, will I struggle with the M.Arch more than those who already have backgrounds in Architecture, regardless of the fact that they take in students from all fields?
If you end up with the same thing afterwards, and the B.Arch is probably easier, why not rather apply for that instead?</p>
<p>In regards to your "will I struggle w/ the M.Arch prog" question, I'd say no, seeing as most students going into the MArch program (as you already stated) won't have that strong of an architecture edu. background in the first place (sure, there will be some students who have B.A's or B.S.'s in Architectural Studies, but it isn't something to worry about. And even if a student were more knowledgeable in, say, building materials, you have the advantage of drawing upon your B.Com education)</p>
<p>As for your difference in having a B.arch v M.arch, I'll give you a super incomplete answer -there tends to be a higher level of expectation in the m.arch. prog. simply because of the age difference (straight out of high school v. mid-20s to late-20s on average) as well as education. bg</p>
<p>The B.arch, M.arch question isn't very useful- they are both just titles-</p>
<p>what you might want to think about is what you truly wish to gain from studying architecture-- and where can you gain the most. I wouldn't make those general assumptions btw-- that a B.arch is easier-- or that there is a higher level of expectation. Everything depends on the individual school.</p>